- By Lekan Olayiwola
Disbursing N330 billion to nearly 20 million households and capturing over 70 million Nigerians in the National Social Register (built since 2016) signals seriousness from a government seeking to cushion the strain of tough but necessary reforms.
Like the students’ loan initiative, the conditional cash transfer programme is a commendable, empathy-driven effort to shield the poor from subsidy removal, currency unification, and food inflation. Yet beyond the scale lies a deeper question: how does this money advance economic justice?
The National Bureau of Statistics’ 2022 Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) paints a picture of stark stratification. In Sokoto, poverty incidence is about 90.5%, followed by Bayelsa (88.5%), Gombe (86.2%), Jigawa (84.3%), and Plateau (84%).
At the other end, states like Ondo have MPI as low as 27%, Lagos about 29-30%, Abia near 30%, and Edo 31%.
The absence of publicly available regional and state disbursement data raises concerns about distributive justice for states with the highest poverty burdens, especially in the Northeast and riverine South-south, under-served or delayed in payments due to digital verification hurdles, infrastructure gaps, or administrative bottlenecks.
While multidimensional poverty indices precede 2023, the lived experience and the urgency of bare life have heightened with mothers skipping meals, school fees postponed, medical emergencies deferred. Any honest conversation about return must begin with who is suffering most.
In many rural and peri-urban areas, identity verification via NIN/BVN has lagged. These services are more concentrated in cities. Electrical power, roads, mobile money services, reliable banking infrastructure are weaker outside urban centre.
When eligibility requires identity documentation, but identity registration offices are few, far, and expensive to reach, many in the very poor category stay excluded.
Fifteen million households were targeted under the Renewed Hope/NASSP-SU cash transfer programme. As of mid-2025, only about 5.6 million households, roughly 37% of that target have received at least one tranche of payment.
Meanwhile, “registered households” or “households on the National Social Register” may in fact include many who have not yet been paid. They may be verified, or awaiting verification, or simply in limbo due to administrative backlog. Thus, numeric registration does not equal civic relief. For many, the promise is anticipatory, not yet material.
When a household receives N75,000 over three months, what matters is the value of what can be bought and when. In the months post-2023, food, fuel and transport prices have escalated rapidly. A payment delayed by weeks is worth significantly less in consumption terms than if delivered promptly.
Read Also: BREAKING: Fed govt to restart direct cash transfers to 12m Nigerians
The time lag between disbursement announcements and actual crediting of accounts is a recurring complaint. For many, the relief is transient. Once the payment is spent, many still face shocks: rising utility bills, school odds and illness.
Multiple stories from beneficiary communities speak of both restoration and betrayal. A woman in one community said, “Finally, someone remembers us.” This is not simply gratitude; it is recognition of humanity. When she was first paid, she felt seen. In contrast, others describe humiliation at pay-out sites, confusion over who qualifies, fear of being excluded, suspicion over who decides the registers. Some report that despite being poverty-obvious, they are never listed among beneficiaries.
Delays then compound distrust in local administrators, in state offices, even in federal programmes. Dignity is not restored when access is not equal.
A recurring theme among beneficiaries is that of “sliding back.” A cash transfer may alleviate immediate hardship: a meal bought, school fees partially paid, medicine obtained. But if next month the transfer is late or absent, inflation has risen, or other shocks occur, the household can find itself back at the brink.
Because many households rely on irregular incomes, once disruption occurs, these transfers do not always build resilience, they just offer momentary reliefs. Thus, economic return is intermittent, subject to new shocks.
Even though state-level cumulative disbursement data is not fully published, some inferences can be made from ancillary reports. Registered households in more digitally connected and infrastructure-strong areas seem likelier to reach payment faster. Rural, remote, and conflict-affected areas remain far more vulnerable to delay or non-inclusion.
Identity verification, mobile network availability, the presence of payment agents or financial inclusion infrastructure are uneven across regions. Where any or all of these are weak, the poor are more likely to be left behind. Thus, regional equity is not yet assured in practice.
To shift from counting naira to evaluating impact, three dimensions must be measured concurrently.
First, economic stability. Are households less likely to skip meals, borrow high-interest loans, sell productive assets when cash arrives? Can they afford school fees, medicines, rent? Are nutritional indicators, child growth or health clinic usage improving?
Second, relational repair. Do beneficiaries feel treated fairly? Are registers transparent? Is the process free of coercion, politics, stigma? Does receiving aid change people’s sense of belonging, of being citizens rather than supplicants?
Third, future resilience and spill over. Does the programme prevent long-term losses — school dropouts prevented, atmospheric debts not escalated, assets preserved? Does the arrival of cash transfers enable investment in small enterprises, better agricultural inputs, better health prevention? Does it stimulate local markets (vendors, transporters) by increasing demand?
Drawing from what is known so far, several reforms could boost the return of the programme:
Streamline identity verification: Bring verification to underserved areas via mobile units or temporary pop-ups. Remove or reduce travel costs for the poorest to access enrolment. Index payments to inflation: Adjust the nominal amount periodically to ensure real purchasing power is preserved.
Ensure consistent, predictable payments: Regularity matters: knowing when payment will arrive helps households plan. Publish regional disbursement data and schedules: This builds accountability and allows civil society or researchers to map whether need is matched with delivery.
Embed qualitative measures alongside quantitative ones: surveys of dignity, trust, grievance logs, beneficiary satisfaction — these help capture relational return.
The Tinubu administration’s cash transfer programme is one of its most visible reforms: N330 billion disbursed, millions registered, hope partially kept. For some, payments mean food on the table; for others, delay deepens despair.
The return is a mixture of relief and resentment; dignity offered but easily lost. If government chases scale alone, it risks eroding trust. But if it pursues fairness, timeliness, inflation-adjustment, and relational repair, this policy can shift from palliative to social and economic justice.
- Olayiwola is a peace & conflict researcher/policy analyst. He can be reached via lekanolayiwola@gmail.com
